Ex Parte Care et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2012

10950250 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/950,250 09/24/2004 Jeffrey E. Care RSW920040106US1 (601) 4953
46320 7590 11/29/2012
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
BODDEN, EVRAL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY E. CARE, ERIK J. BURCKART, RYAN L.
URQUHART, and DAVID J. SCHELL
____________

Appeal 2010-006954
Application 10/950,250
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-22. Claim 23 has been canceled. (App. Br. 2.) We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2010-006954
Application 10/950,250

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed a system and method for analyzing
configuration changes made to a computerized system. (See generally
Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with key disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A configuration analysis system for analyzing
configuration changes made to a computerized system,
comprising:
a system for generating data based on a captured set of
configuration changes, wherein the generated data
characterizes the configuration changes;
an analyzer repository for storing a set of analyzers,
wherein each analyzer is capable of determining at least one of
potential side-effects of the configuration changes, wherein
each analyzer has an associated rule defining at least one
predefined configuration change; and
an analyzer selection system for selecting at least one
analyzer from the analyzer repository by comparing the
generated data with the associated rules of the analyzers.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Lang et al. (US 7,032,133 B1; issued Apr. 18, 2006; filed
June 6, 2002.) (Ans. 3-14.) 1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
Aug. 11, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed Nov. 27, 2009; and
Appeal 2010-006954
Application 10/950,250

3
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Lang discloses every recited feature of
illustrative claim 1, including the limitations of (1) a system for generating
data based on a captured set of configuration changes, wherein the generated
data characterizes the configuration changes and (2) an analyzer repository
for storing a set of analyzers, … (3) wherein each analyzer has an associated
rule defining at least one predefined configuration change. (Ans. 3-5 and
15-25.) On the other hand, Appellants contend that Lang fails to disclose
these features. (App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 2-8.) Namely, Appellants argue
that Lang’s parameter values are not generated nor do they characterize
configuration changes. (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2-4.) Additionally,
Appellants assert that Lang’s test execution units cannot be a set of
analyzers as they do not “analyze” data. (Reply Br. 6.) And Appellants
maintain that Lang’s feedback activity cannot be a set of analyzers because
there is only a single feedback activity disclosed. (Reply Br. 5-6.) Finally,
Appellants contend that Lang’s environment specific definitions are not
rules associated with an analyzer, and Lang fails to disclose a predefined
configuration change. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 6-8.)

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Lang discloses
(1) a system for generating data based on a captured set of

(3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed Jan. 26, 2010.
Appeal 2010-006954
Application 10/950,250

4
configuration changes, wherein the generated data characterizes the
configuration changes,
(2) an analyzer repository for storing a set of analyzers, and
(3) wherein each analyzer has an associated rule defining at least one
predefined configuration change?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1
as anticipated by Lang. Namely, we are not persuaded by Appellants that
Lang fails to teach each disputed limitation.
First, Appellants argue that Lang fails to disclose generating data that
characterizes configuration changes. (App. Br. 4-6.) In particular,
Appellants maintain that Lang only discloses getting or retrieving parameter
values, not generating them. (App. Br. 5.) To the contrary, Lang describes
using a plurality of parameter definitions to establish or derive a set of
parameter values, including both static and dynamic values, for a particular
environment or focus area of a data processing system that will be tested.
(Lang, col. 1, ll. 45-54; col. 2, ll. 26-32; col. 3, ll. 44-46; see also Ans. 15-16
and 18-19 (discussing that parameter values are derived from a system
environment configuration).) In other words, the parameter definitions are
used to produce or generate a set of parameter values for a particular test
area or environment. Moreover, as identified by the Examiner, Lang also
discloses generating the dynamic parameter values. (See, e.g., Ans. 16-19
Appeal 2010-006954
Application 10/950,250

5
(citing Lang col. 1, ll. 54-65.) Thus, we disagree with Appellants that Lang
fails to disclose generating data.
Next, Appellants argue that the parameter values do not characterize
configuration changes. (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2-4.) Appellants’
Specification, however, broadly indicates that “[c]onfiguration change(s) 10
may comprise a set of (i.e., one or more) changes made to the operational
state of the complex system 12, e.g., changing a value, constraint, range,
etc., of a timing, memory or processing parameter.” (Spec. [0015].) Here,
Lang expressly states a set of parameter values may represent an unexpected
deviation (i.e. change) from normal operation of the system. (Lang, col. 8,
ll. 57-59.) Further, Lang discloses that because parameters “sometime have
unforeseen interactions or affects on the behavior of the system, it may be
desirable to dynamically adjust parameter values during test execution….”
(Ans. 19 (citing Lang, col. 3, ll. 3-6).) A single test program, then, will
include multiple sets of parameter values that together characterize changes
in system behavior. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Lang
discloses generating data that characterizes configuration changes.
Appellants additionally contend that the Examiner incorrectly points
to “different and separate sets of features within Lang” as disclosing the
claimed set of analyzers. (Reply Br. 5.) More specifically, according to
Appellants, the test execution units and the feedback activity are disparate
and separate teachings and must be individually compared to the claimed set
of analyzers. (Reply Br. 5-6.) Then Appellants address why each feature
Appeal 2010-006954
Application 10/950,250

6
separately cannot satisfy the claimed set of analyzers. (Id.)
We disagree, however, that the test execution units and the feedback
activity must be considered independently. As identified by the Examiner,
Lang’s multiple test execution units work in conjunction with the feedback
activity. (Ans. 22 (citing Lang, col. 8, l. 62-col. 9, l. 2).) And, as the
Appellants admit, the feedback activity performs analysis. (Reply Br. 5-6.)
Thus, each of the multiple test execution units works together with the
feedback activity to perform analysis. (See Lang, col. 8, l. 64-col. 9, l. 2.)
Based on the record before us then, we agree with the Examiner that Lang
discloses the claimed set of analyzers.
Regarding the final disputed limitation, Appellants challenge Lang’s
disclosure of the claimed associated rule. (App. Br. 6-7.) Appellants
acknowledge that the Examiner cited the environment specific definitions as
corresponding to the claimed associated rule, but then merely respond with
unsupported blanket assertions that the environment specific definitions are
not rules associated with specific test execution units and/or feedback
activity. (See App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 7.)
To the contrary, Lang describes that there is a specific test program
for each environment (Ans. 4 (citing Lang, col. 2, ll. 28-31).) and that the
environment specific definitions define conditions for that environment,
such as identifying which parameters are critical. (Ans. 24 (citing Lang, col.
7, ll. 10-23).) Both the test execution unit and the feedback activity use the
environment specific definitions while testing and analyzing the parameter
Appeal 2010-006954
Application 10/950,250

7
values for that environment. (See, e.g., Lang, col. 7, ll. 7-18.) Therefore, the
environment specific definitions are rules associated with specific test
execution units and feedback activity.
Finally, Appellants contend that Lang fails to disclose the claimed
predefined configuration change. (Reply Br. 6-8.) However, Lang describes
that the environment-specific definitions will indicate which parameters are
critical, fixed, restricted to a range, or allowed to vary randomly. (Ans. 24
(citing Lang, col. 7, ll. 7-10.) Appellants dismiss Lang’s disclosure of
“fixed” parameter values by maintaining that because they are fixed, they
cannot represent a configuration change. (Reply Br. 7.) As discussed above
though, Lang expressly describes that the parameter values may represent a
change in system behavior, i.e. a configuration change. (See Lang, col. 8, ll.
57-59.) Thus, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing and find that Lang
discloses the claimed predefined configuration change.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1; independent claims
9, 16, and 22, which recite commensurate limitations; and dependent claims
2-8, 10-15, and 17-21 not separately argued with particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-22 under § 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-006954
Application 10/950,250

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk